Article 59 establishes the legal framework for national market surveillance authorities (MSAs) to carry out joint activities — principally joint investigations and coordinated enforcement actions — when addressing CRA non-compliance that has cross-border implications. Joint activities allow multiple national authorities to pool investigative resources, share evidence, and issue coordinated corrective measures against manufacturers whose products are sold across more than one EU member state. ENISA can participate in a technical advisory capacity and the Commission can support coordination. Joint activities under Article 59 are a significant escalation tool because their cross-border reach makes them much harder for manufacturers to outmanoeuvre than unilateral national enforcement.
When Joint Activities Are Used
Article 59 provides for joint activities where coordination between multiple national market surveillance authorities is necessary for effective enforcement. Circumstances typically warranting a joint investigation include:
- A manufacturer whose products are sold across multiple EU member states and where a unilateral national action would be ineffective
- A manufacturer established in a third country where the MSA of a single member state lacks adequate leverage
- A cybersecurity risk identified in a product category where coordinated market-wide action is needed to protect all EU users
- A vulnerability that exploits a systemic issue affecting products from multiple manufacturers
- A risk identified through ENISA's European vulnerability database (EVDB) or a CSIRT cross-border notification
Joint activities leverage the collective legal authority of multiple national MSAs, making it harder for manufacturers to deflect or delay enforcement by focusing on procedural differences between member states.
Structure and Coordination of Joint Investigations
Article 59 provides for joint investigation structures that allocate lead and supporting roles to national MSAs. A lead authority is typically designated — usually the MSA of the member state where the manufacturer is established (for EU manufacturers) or where the authorised representative is located (for non-EU manufacturers). Supporting authorities contribute investigative resources and share jurisdiction over their national markets.
ENISA can participate in joint activities in a technical advisory capacity, providing cybersecurity expertise and access to EVDB data that informs the investigation. ENISA does not have enforcement powers of its own but can significantly enhance joint activities through technical analysis.
The Commission can also support joint activities — particularly where they involve products affecting critical infrastructure or where the findings may lead to EU-wide corrective measures under Article 59 (Union safeguard procedure).
Information Exchange Between Investigating Authorities
Article 59 requires participating national MSAs to share information gathered in the course of joint activities. This includes technical test results, communications with the manufacturer, legal assessments, and enforcement plans. The sharing must be timely to enable coordinated action.
The ICSMS (Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance) database and the Safety Gate rapid alert system serve as primary information-sharing mechanisms, supplemented by direct communications through established authority networks.
Manufacturers under joint investigation should expect that information they provide to one national authority will be shared with all participating authorities. There is no advantage in providing different or inconsistent information to different authorities — discrepancies will be identified through information exchange and may be treated as evidence of non-cooperation.
Outcomes of Joint Activities
Joint activities can result in coordinated enforcement outcomes applied simultaneously across multiple member states. Where a joint investigation confirms non-compliance, participating MSAs can issue coordinated corrective action orders, product withdrawal requirements, or prohibitions on market placement. Coordinated outcomes ensure the manufacturer cannot continue sales in less active enforcement jurisdictions while complying with requirements in others.
Where joint activities result in significant findings about systemic non-compliance, the findings may be shared with the Commission, potentially triggering EU-wide implementing acts under the Union safeguard procedure in Article 59. This escalation pathway makes joint activities a powerful enforcement tool for addressing widespread or structural compliance failures.
Manufacturers facing joint investigations should engage experienced EU regulatory legal counsel who can navigate the multi-jurisdiction procedural complexity and ensure consistent, appropriate responses to all participating authorities.
Relationship to the Union Safeguard Procedure
Article 59 joint activities are distinct from but complementary to the Union safeguard procedure in Article 59. Joint activities are initiated by national MSAs acting collectively; the Union safeguard procedure is triggered when one MSA takes national restrictive measures and the Commission must assess whether those measures are justified at the Union level.
In practice, a joint investigation under Article 59 may precede a Union safeguard procedure: the joint investigation gathers evidence of non-compliance, leading to coordinated national measures, which in turn trigger the Article 59 procedure if the Commission needs to determine a Union-wide position. The two provisions form part of a connected enforcement escalation chain.
For critical products (Annex IV) or products presenting a serious cybersecurity risk, Article 59 joint activities may move faster and carry greater legal weight because they do not require the sequential national measure / Commission review sequence that the Article 59 safeguard procedure entails.
CVD Portal helps you comply with Article 59 automatically.
Public submission portal, 48-hour acknowledgment tracking, Article 14 deadline alerts, and CSAF advisory generation. Free for Article 14 compliance — for all manufacturers placing products with digital elements on the EU market.
Start your free portalFrequently asked
Can a manufacturer be subject to a joint investigation without having sold products in all participating member states?+
Yes. National MSAs can participate in joint activities even if the product has not yet reached their national market, where the cross-border cybersecurity risk justifies coordinated surveillance. A manufacturer identified as posing a systemic risk in one or two member states may face a joint investigation involving authorities from states where the product is anticipated to be distributed.
Does ENISA lead joint investigations under Article 59?+
No. ENISA participates in an advisory and technical support capacity — it does not have enforcement powers and cannot initiate or lead a joint investigation. The lead authority is always a national MSA. ENISA's value in joint activities is its technical cybersecurity expertise and access to the European vulnerability database, which helps national authorities build stronger evidence bases.
How does a joint investigation under Article 59 differ from the Union safeguard procedure in Article 59?+
A joint investigation under Article 59 is a proactive cooperative exercise between national MSAs, pooling resources and authority before or without formal national measures. The Union safeguard procedure in Article 59 is reactive: it is triggered after a national MSA has already taken a restrictive measure (such as a recall or prohibition), and it determines whether that national measure should apply Union-wide. Joint activities and the safeguard procedure are complementary steps in the same enforcement escalation chain.
What rights does a manufacturer have during a joint investigation?+
Manufacturers retain all rights applicable under national administrative and enforcement law in the relevant member states, including rights to be heard before adverse measures are taken, rights of access to the procedural file (subject to confidentiality protections), and rights of appeal to national administrative courts or tribunals. The CRA does not create a separate set of procedural rights for joint investigations — each participating MSA acts within its own national legal framework while sharing information with partner authorities.
Can Article 59 joint activities involve authorities from outside the EU?+
Article 59 is an intra-EU mechanism. However, the CRA's market surveillance framework permits information exchange with third-country authorities under international agreements. Where a manufacturer is established in a third country with which the EU has a mutual recognition agreement or regulatory cooperation framework, that third-country authority may informally assist — but formal joint activity powers under Article 59 extend only to EU national MSAs.
Related CRA Articles
Need a CVD policy that satisfies Article 59?
Download a free CRA-compliant template and deploy it in minutes.